Talkin' About Sex Baby

If there's one thing more surprising about erotica suddenly gracing the pages of The Times, then it's the fact that has been penned by Michael Asciak, Nationalist MP. There are few achievements that the Nationalist Party has not scaled in its history, the crowning moment of which was the day the Mars bar began to be imported to Malta. Before that, people had to rely on the remittances of lucky relatives who could travel to Catania for shopping expeditions at the Misterbianco shopping centre. And even then, one was more likely to get those little novelty ones, or if very lucky, a squashed Kinder egg.
All this notwithstanding, the art of arousing literature is not yet at the fingertips of even that great exponent of Christian values that is the PN. If anything the very opposite is the case, as the well-publicised puritan ravings of Dolores Cristina comprehensively attest.
The Labour Party on the other hand does have more potential in this area. After all, Alfred Sant is no prude, if you will excuse the wordplay. I can only but imagine what dissipated pamphlets Joe Debono Grech would write, if only he could write. Perhaps a cross between Lady Chatterley’s Lover and an Istitut Kattoliku comedy:

"Ara Cens, x'pastizz ghandha!"
"Iii, kemm int pastuz!"
"Le, Cens, issa issa waslet minn ghand il-Maxim's. Mela x'fhimt?!"

Indeed, the Labour politician is closer to the working man on the street; he speaks his language, and feels his pain. And if he gets a chance, he'll be inflicting most of the pain as well.
But Michael Asciak can claim no such earthiness, and it is predictable that his attempt to speak in a relaxed and enlightened way about sex sounds as though he was copying out a biology text book:

First of all, one must underline that sexual reproduction involves a natural expression of communication and is a mode of reproduction that has evolved naturally in creation including in man, over another form of reproduction called asexual. But like all good things it has to be used properly to be beneficial. Otherwise it could have the opposite effect for which it was intended and that is why there are certain social and personal norms regulating its use, that people might not hurt themselves and others.

The beginning of that quote suggests somebody that is afraid of women, but by the end of the extract the fear has transmuted into unmitigated horror and disgust. Apart from that, the bloodless explanation is riddled with inaccuracies. For a start, it's a well known fact that Francis Zammit Dimech was conceived by asexual means. I am actually lost for words to comment about the rest, though. What was he thinking when he wrote those words? It is a shame he didn't specify exactly what he meant by the most beneficial use of "sexual reproduction". The "opposite effect"?

"Mike... Come to bed...”
"No darling, not tonight. It won't be beneficial. Indeed, it will have an opposite effect. We might hurt ourselves. Or someone else!"

Though that's not fair to his sense for legality, for as he notes in his conclusion:

The right to reproductive and sexual health is both an ethical issue and a national prerogative.

Well, good that that's been cleared up then.